From what I've read and understand, no search warrant was issue for Guyger's apartment because she gave them permission to do so (hence no search warrant). And as far as the toxicology, I don't believe that will be made public until after the trial (where's Botham Jean's toxicology?).

Considering the source of your article, I'm not suprised by the bias.

This is not "fact" but makes sense as to what happened regarding a search warrant for Guyger's apartment.

Was Guyger's apartment searched?
Authorities have not said whether Guyger's apartment or vehicle were searched. A search warrant would not have been necessary if officials obtained consent to search her apartment at the South Side Flats.

From what I've read and understand, no search warrant was issue for Guyger's apartment because she gave them permission to do so (hence no search warrant). And as far as the toxicology, I don't believe that will be made public until after the trial (where's Botham Jean's toxicology?).

Considering the source of your article, I'm not suprised by the bias.

This is not "fact" but makes sense as to what happened regarding a search warrant for Guyger's apartment.

Was Guyger's apartment searched?
Authorities have not said whether Guyger's apartment or vehicle were searched. A search warrant would not have been necessary if officials obtained consent to search her apartment at the South Side Flats.

We have no evidence that Guyger's apartment or vehicle was searched. 911 call recording has not been released. Botham's tox report is irrelevant, and autopsy report likely showing that the fatal gunshot wound was inflicted at close range has not been released. This incident is/was an international story and if newsone.com is the only source that will cover it, there is a legacy media failure here as well.

Last edited by Paladin on Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

He would have been probably sentenced to death already or life in prison. And I don't understand people. What does the dead mans toxicology report have to do with anything? He was shot DEAD in his OWN apartment. Just Wow ! It disgusting and unbelievable what some of these people think. To even fathom doing a toxicology report on a man shot in his own place?

From what I've read and understand, no search warrant was issue for Guyger's apartment because she gave them permission to do so (hence no search warrant). And as far as the toxicology, I don't believe that will be made public until after the trial (where's Botham Jean's toxicology?).

Considering the source of your article, I'm not suprised by the bias.

This is not "fact" but makes sense as to what happened regarding a search warrant for Guyger's apartment.

Was Guyger's apartment searched?
Authorities have not said whether Guyger's apartment or vehicle were searched. A search warrant would not have been necessary if officials obtained consent to search her apartment at the South Side Flats.

Other have pointed this out, but why are you asking about the victim's toxicology report? What possible relevance could that have here? I'm genuinely curious. It's about as relevant as whether he had recreational drugs in his home. Which is to say that its not relevant at all.

Conversely, there is an obvious reason why the cop's toxicology report might be relevant. After all, she is claiming that she was confused and thought that she was at her own apartment. This directly leads to the possibility that she might have been drunk or high when she entered someone's home and shot him.

Now if the dead guy had barged into the cop's home, then his tox report might shed light on some things.

The police should have had plenty of time to search the shooter's apartment while she was in custody awaiting a bail hearing. But she didn't spend much time in custody, did she? Regardless, if she gave consent to a search before she re-entered her apartment or vehicle, that fact would cast her in a positive light. Based on other leaks, I strongly suspect that if this did in fact occur, we would know about it.

We entrust police officers with the power to arrest us and deprive us, at least temporarily, of our fundamental right to liberty. They should be held to a much higher standard than "ordinary" citizens. And that's definitely not happening here.

Also, since any evidence of a prior relationship between the cop and the dead guy would be extremely relevant, I sure hope that the DA captured a full download of all her social media accounts before she scrubbed them.

There won't be any details released until the Texas Rangers, complete their investigation. The reason the Rangers are brought in, is because they have no dog in the hunt. It was not a Ranger involved shooting. They are very thourough, and keep details close to the vest. I know a month seems like a long time, but they will interview, everyone who knew the victim, as well as anyone who knows the officer. Forensic evidence takes time to complete, as well as putting it all together. They will also, more than likely, not release the report to the public, but submit it to the DA.
I have seen first hand their methodology, and thouroughuness, in an investigation. It is impressive.
Any articles, or statements from the press, on this shooting are simply speculation. JMHO

There were two people involved in a shooting with no witnesses their interaction other than the survivor. In figuring out what happened every type of evidence about both actors is relevant until investigators examine it and determine it is not. Deciding which kind of evidence is not relevant in advance because you’ve already prejudged who the is the victims and who is the perpetrator is laying the tracks of a railroad, not to mention putting a hole in the case big enough for a defense attorney to drive an acquittal through.

With any luck, the Texas rangers are calm and professional enough to consider everything, and then rule in or out as the evidence directs.

There were two people involved in a shooting with no witnesses their interaction other than the survivor. In figuring out what happened every type of evidence about both actors is relevant until investigators examine it and determine it is not. Deciding which kind of evidence is not relevant in advance because you’ve already prejudged who the is the victims and who is the perpetrator is laying the tracks of a railroad, not to mention putting a hole in the case big enough for a defense attorney to drive an acquittal through.

With any luck, the Texas rangers are calm and professional enough to consider everything, and then rule in or out as the evidence directs.

I understand, but surely there are limits here? For example, when we have a case where someone ambushes a police officer and kills them, is it common to execute a search warrant at the dead officer's home, and then publicly release information about anything illicit that may have been found there? If so, then by all means the police should do the same thing here. But I did not think that was standard procedure.

There were two people involved in a shooting with no witnesses their interaction other than the survivor. In figuring out what happened every type of evidence about both actors is relevant until investigators examine it and determine it is not. Deciding which kind of evidence is not relevant in advance because you’ve already prejudged who the is the victims and who is the perpetrator is laying the tracks of a railroad, not to mention putting a hole in the case big enough for a defense attorney to drive an acquittal through.

With any luck, the Texas rangers are calm and professional enough to consider everything, and then rule in or out as the evidence directs.

I understand, but surely there are limits here? For example, when we have a case where someone ambushes a police officer and kills them, is it common to execute a search warrant at the dead officer's home, and then publicly release information about anything illicit that may have been found there? If so, then by all means the police should do the same thing here. But I did not think that was standard procedure.

It is common practice to do a search at any crime scene. Getting a search warrant, would probably be executed as a means to make sure nothing was done illegally. You assume that there was a cocerted effort to release or leak the information as a way to throw doubt on the victim. Dallas PD is a large organization, hiring a lot of non-law enforcement personnel. As quickly, as the folks organized to portray this as a racial issue, leads me to believe, they had an informant on the inside, who could have leaked the info, to give the impression, the police were trying to smear, the victim, when it may have simply been a list, of what was entered into evidence. This is probably why the Rangers were called in so quickly, because, Dallas PD could not prevent leaks. JMHO

There were two people involved in a shooting with no witnesses their interaction other than the survivor. In figuring out what happened every type of evidence about both actors is relevant until investigators examine it and determine it is not. Deciding which kind of evidence is not relevant in advance because you’ve already prejudged who the is the victims and who is the perpetrator is laying the tracks of a railroad, not to mention putting a hole in the case big enough for a defense attorney to drive an acquittal through.

With any luck, the Texas rangers are calm and professional enough to consider everything, and then rule in or out as the evidence directs.

I understand, but surely there are limits here? For example, when we have a case where someone ambushes a police officer and kills them, is it common to execute a search warrant at the dead officer's home, and then publicly release information about anything illicit that may have been found there? If so, then by all means the police should do the same thing here. But I did not think that was standard procedure.

God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.

I am not going to play "what if" or do any armchair quaterbacking, on what did, or didn't happen, what the officer thought, or believed, or try to put myself, in the position of either person, what search warrants we're issued, their validity, or what was gathered as evidence. This was a tragedy, it cost someone their life, and someone else their career, and possible freedom.
As a former LEO, I know that finishing a shift, especially, if it was a stressful, or overextended, one, can cause you to go into auto pilot. Especially when you get in familiar surroundings such as your home.
I posted about my experience, on another thread, of walking into my house after, an evening shift, at approximately 11:30 pm, not turning on the lights, to avoid waking anyone, and seeing, what I perceived, as a man crouched down, at the end of the entry hall. In reflex I struck out with my left arm, and reached for my gun. Something about him felt strange, when I hit him, and only after turning on the light, did I realize, I had struck a rubber tree plant my wife had brought home that day. Suddenly going from, relaxed, and comfortable, to suddenly having a massive adrenaline rush, is not a pleasant experience, and everything that I did, was instictual. Luckily, I didn't draw and shoot the plant, but I can see how it can happen.
As of now, I am taking what happened, at face value, because I have no first hand knowledge, of what happened, and the full investigation, is not done. As I said, it is a tragedy, and prayers are sent for everyone affected. JMHO

There were two people involved in a shooting with no witnesses their interaction other than the survivor. In figuring out what happened every type of evidence about both actors is relevant until investigators examine it and determine it is not. Deciding which kind of evidence is not relevant in advance because you’ve already prejudged who the is the victims and who is the perpetrator is laying the tracks of a railroad, not to mention putting a hole in the case big enough for a defense attorney to drive an acquittal through.

With any luck, the Texas rangers are calm and professional enough to consider everything, and then rule in or out as the evidence directs.

I understand, but surely there are limits here? For example, when we have a case where someone ambushes a police officer and kills them, is it common to execute a search warrant at the dead officer's home, and then publicly release information about anything illicit that may have been found there? If so, then by all means the police should do the same thing here. But I did not think that was standard procedure.

Was the police officer ambushed in his home? I would expect it to be searched, sure. ETA: and if the searched turned up evidence of drug use, he (or his heirs) could certainly expect his whole life to be examined for all kinds of relationships.

This police officer in this incident had her home searched too, albeit by consent rather than warrant, which seems to keep getting overlooked.

There were two people involved in a shooting with no witnesses their interaction other than the survivor. In figuring out what happened every type of evidence about both actors is relevant until investigators examine it and determine it is not. Deciding which kind of evidence is not relevant in advance because you’ve already prejudged who the is the victims and who is the perpetrator is laying the tracks of a railroad, not to mention putting a hole in the case big enough for a defense attorney to drive an acquittal through.

With any luck, the Texas rangers are calm and professional enough to consider everything, and then rule in or out as the evidence directs.

I understand, but surely there are limits here? For example, when we have a case where someone ambushes a police officer and kills them, is it common to execute a search warrant at the dead officer's home, and then publicly release information about anything illicit that may have been found there? If so, then by all means the police should do the same thing here. But I did not think that was standard procedure.

Was the police officer ambushed in his home? I would expect it to be searched, sure. ETA: and if the searched turned up evidence of drug use, he (or his heirs) could certainly expect his whole life to be examined for all kinds of relationships.

This police officer in this incident had her home searched too, albeit by consent rather than warrant, which seems to keep getting overlooked.

Searching the shooters home and car is not being mentioned because it seems pretty obvious that this was the proper thing to do. Releasing the shooter immediately is being mentioned because it does not seem obvious that this is what normally would happen to someone who goes into someone's home and kills them.

You are the second person to inform me that it is, in fact, common to search the home of a shooting victim (when the victim is shot at home). So I'll revert to my earlier post where I explicitly stated that my objection to that search and info release was based on my apparent misconception on that point.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the shooter here is being handled in remotely the same way that she would be if she had not been a LEO. That really is the whole point.